On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Roman <[email protected]> wrote:
Michael has given one example. Here's my turn. When having nested routes > like `/trees/42/apples`, I'm doing a `Tree.find(42)` and it raises if > there's no such tree. In other case, when the object is associated to > current_user, there's no need to put its id in the routes, but for symmetry > I would still like to call something that conveniently raises if the record > is not present. > There is something about the associations API that doesn't quite match with this proposal in my view. The problem I see is that the associations API is only partially a finder API, due to the cached records. Once you take into account the method does not always fire a query, the semantics of a bang variant start to be unclear to me. Bang methods make sense for me for stuff that goes to the database. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
